Biden to Address Congress

The president puts the pressure on for Congress to pass an infrastructure plan, while Democrats weigh whether to work with Republicans or try to go it alone.

By
14

Good morning. President Joe Biden will deliver his joint address to Congress tomorrow. He is set to call for a police reform compromise as well as a new sweeping proposal to invest in education, child care, and more.

Biden’s soon to be revealed “American Families Plan” is expected to include funding for free community college, universal prekindergarten, and paid family and medical leave, among other top Democratic priorities. Republicans have already pushed back on the proposal, saying they believe it is too costly. They are also likely to take issue with Biden’s plan to raise taxes on wealthy Americans to pay for it. The White House’s latest push will add pressure on congressional Democrats to deliver on an ambitious agenda, as they are already in the process of converting Biden’s initial $2.25 trillion infrastructure and climate (and more) proposal into legislative text.

One thing is clear: This won’t be the incredibly speedy process that defined Democrats’ initial coronavirus relief effort. The next few months will be packed with jockeying among lawmakers, negotiations with Republicans, and fine-tuning to navigate Biden’s various priorities through Congress. Democrats don’t have a firm plan for how they’ll sequence different items in the coming months. Lawmakers could draft and pass several different bills, depending on where bipartisan backing can be mustered.

Either way, Democrats are likely to advance some of Biden’s more liberal ideas through budget reconciliation, the process they used for their coronavirus aid plan. Reconciliation has a lower threshold for passage in the Senate than most bills, allowing Democrats to pass legislation without support from Republicans. But gathering the requisite support to pass such a measure can prove difficult, and it will take some time to determine which items will need to go into the partisan vehicle and which ones have a chance at passing under normal Senate rules.

Keep reading with a free account
Create a free Dispatch account to keep reading Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
14
By
Comments (14)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. learnin4life

    Three questions and one tongue in cheek suggestion.

    What explanations, if any, are offered by recipients of prior funding concerning why the money has yet to be spent, and based on the response is it available to be redirected by the Senate? In effect, is it in a use it or lose scenario?

    If the Dems felt strongly enough about the sufficiency of defense spending at lower levels than currently authorized, why not offset some of the proposed infrastructure spending with defense reductions? The question will be even if any Dem feels that defense is ripe for cuts, do they have the political courage to suggest reductions. The risk is, of course, if anything unexpected happens related to national security/defense, the first item in the blame game will pin the responsibility on the funding reduction. Whether there is any connection at all. Since Repubs seem loathe to cut defense under any circumstances (and in all likelihood Dems too, this scenario is highly unlikely. It's an interesting what-if though.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Bill Nelson

      “The risk is, of course, if anything unexpected happens related to national security/defense...”
      What are the expected things? The Constitution assigns national defense to the federal government, under the president. The early governments tried to do this without a standing army and found they could not. Adequate funding for the unexpected is a requirement. And history teaches us that the more prepared you are, the lower the likelihood of needing the military.

      Collapse
      1. learnin4life

        Good question. Since I'm not plugged into the defense planning process I can't say with certainty. I believe my original point, however, revolves what is "adequate" funding. Is the current rate enough or too much? Is the fact no equivalent attacks by foreign sponsored actors have occurred on US soil since 2001 determinative the funding levels are correct? I would respectfully suggest the answers to these questions are unknowable with certainty, and therein lies the dilemma for politicians on the matter of reducing defense funding.

        Having said this, I don't have any objections to statements in your comment.



        Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      Pat Riot

      Right now there is absolutely *zero* political penalty for running deficits, so it makes no sense for either party to pay for anything unless the way they are doing so is itself politically popular e.g. sticking it to the rich.

      I suspect Democrats will pass a tax that affects only certain mutli-centamillionaires and above, which will look really great and will probably raise diddly squat in taxes since there aren't enough of those people to really make a huge difference. But it will make for good political theater all around.

      Collapse
      1. learnin4life

        Say it ain't so! Form over substance. I agree with your view.

        Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    Narwhal

    As I understand the current situation, the shipyards we have produce around five ships a year for our naval fleet and there is generally a backlog for repairs and refits of existing ships for the US Navy. Is this addressed by either party in their infrastructure bills or spending priorities?

    Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    Pat Riot

    The problem Democrats have with the Medicare expansion is that it's definitely *not* "infrastructure" and is indeed a permanent expansion of the welfare state, but... it's *insanely* popular--the *most* popular aspect of the currently proposed infrastructure bill.

    Manchin is absolutely right that these bills are too big and should be broken up. When he says, "people don't understand it" we means, "Democrats won't get as much political mileage out of it" and he's right. Successive waves of popular bills is the best case scenario for Democrats.

    Of course Republicans know all of this, which is why they will block everything regardless of what it is, and any noises they are making now are only designed to slow down the process--and they know that Democrats *must* play this game for a certain period of time even though everybody knows what is going on.

    The skill for Democrats, then, will be manifested in how quickly they can get through the Republican's "bipartisan game" while looking like they went through the motions.


    Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    Jerry Masters

    Ms. Byrd,
    Are committee meeting agendas published?
    If so, could you link to them in your "Key Hearings" segment.
    In addition to your crisp subject descriptions---which are great---I might learn something useful by reading about agenda topics, witnesses, etc.

    I find your reporting trustworthy, and for that am much obliged.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photocircle-angle-nib
      Haley Byrd Wilt vertical-nib Author

      This is a good idea! I'll make sure to do that going forward. Sometimes committee websites haven't been updated with the schedule by the time we publish these on Tuesdays, but usually they have pages I can add. Thanks :)

      Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    Luke Sherman

    The number of congress members saying that "we need to move quick" and that "we can't wait" on these bills makes me very, very nervous. Quick action in the response to a disaster or an act of war is one thing, but quick action over spending priorities is absolutely baffling. This is an infrastructure bill, which is all funding that won't even translate into action for months or years as it stands. Why on earth does this need to be done lightning quick except for partisan political reasons?

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Kmregan7

      It could be partisan political reason (it is - at least in part). But it's also that our infrastructure has been falling apart for decades now. The American Society of Civil Engineers has been giving out very bad "grades" re: the state of our bridges, roads, dams, etc. for a long while. There are maintenance backlogs, bridges that are in dangerous conditions but still being used, etc.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Luke Sherman

        But why does that preclude our representatives taking the time to have a deliberate and careful discussion about what needs to be spent on infrastructure? Even if passed today, none of this will get passed along to the states that will be doing the actual work for months (many of these states are already undertaking a number of these construction projects with the new surpluses that they received from all of the COVID relief bills that we have passed the last year). The urgency that circumvents debate is an impulse that I am finding very troubling in both of the major parties.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Kmregan7

          I don't think they're circumventing debate - I think they just realize it's 1) a big problem that's been ignored, or kicked down the line multiple lines, that needs to be solved and 2) they're being partisan because it will look good if it gets passed under Biden/Dems.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Luke Sherman

            If they actually have a debate and do some bipartisanship on this, I am perfectly willing to concede that are trying not to kick the can on this. It is just that most of the rhetoric is coming across to me, as someone who is sick of both parties, as one of those situations where they think that they full scope of the bill is the only right way to address the issue and not allowing for the opportunity to break this into smaller pieces that can address critical infrastructure and then allow for robust debate on the items that are less clearly infrastructure. If the sides actually concede some, I will be pleasantly surprised, but right now I am worried that we are about to slam future generations with trillions more debt with minimal discussion about if this is the best way to accomplish the goal.

            Collapse